Make it possible to instantiate a keyfile settings backend
without specifying parameters, by turning the arguments to
the new() function into construct-only properties. If no
filename is specified, default to
$XDG_CONFIG_HOME/glib-2.0/settings/keyfile
Change the order of the arguments on the (internal) keys_changed callback in
GSettingsListenerVTable.
This means that all functions in the table now fit the following signature:
void (* f) (GObject *target,
GSettingsBackend *backend,
const gchar *name_or_path,
gpointer origin_tag,
const gchar * const *names);
allowing the possibility of arguments ignored at the end.
This allows us to simplify our dispatch-to-thread code in GSettingsBackend,
making it a bit less generic.
So far, this should be a straight refactor.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=710367
This will get the 'user' value from the database (ie: the one that the user has
control over).
Provide a default implementation that chains to ->read(). That will work for
all of our internal backends which don't have a concept of layering or
lockdown.
The delayed backend implments "user value" by returning anything that's
in the changeset (incuding an explicit NULL) or chaining up otherwise.
We will use this for g_settings_get_user_value().
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=668233
For GSettings.
Use the functionality introduced in the last commit to simplify our
notify dispatching and increase the safety of doing so (by ensuring that
the context is acquired in the current thread for the duration of the
dispatch).
This closes bugs #623400 and #629849.
- hold a lock while accessing the tree of delayed values
- use weak reference counts with the owner object to avoid doing
g_object_notify on a dead object
- dispatch the "has-unapplied" notify to the proper main context
This commit fixes up a few race conditions in the GSettingsBackend, mostly with
respect to change notifications occuring at the same time as the last reference
count on a GSettings is dropped. With GDBus feeding us our incoming signals in
a separate thread, this is something that could easily happen.
